Sheriff's Office issues public warning over cosplay photo shoot with large fake rifle

A cosplay photo shoot held on the public Seacliff State Beach in Monterey Bay, California prompted a warning from the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office. According to local news station KRON4, the photo shoot involved a very large replica rifle that, based on footage shared by the news agency, didn’t feature any sort of markers to indicate that it was fake.

The incident took place on July 3, according to KRON, and involved a police response after concerned beachgoers reported sightings of the fake rifle. Regardless of whether they suspect it is real or fake, the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office encourages the public to report the presence of any firearm spotted in public.

Speaking to the news agency, a Sheriff’s Office official warned that carrying a replica gun in public, such as for a cosplay photoshoot, may put people at risk. ‘They may know it’s a replica,’ a Sheriff’s Deputy explained. ‘but our responding officers don’t have any idea what they’re walking into, as well as the other public members that are on the beach.’

Regulations for displaying replica or imitation firearms in public vary based on jurisdiction. In California, imitation firearms are prohibited from display in public places unless they are entirely painted with certain approved bright colors or are entirely transparent. Violating these rules may result in fines for the first and second infractions potentially followed by a misdemeanor for any future violations.

Comments

You people have never had any fun ! ... In 1955, as a Navy S.P. I carried a 45. as a sidearm in Brooklyn and Manhattan. And when I got lucky and I was assigned to Payroll Duty, I carried a 45 Thompson Sub-mac. M1A1All with live rounds, no empty chips. And "No Problems" !

Now, I get to shoot with cameras, just as much fun. "Thank God for the amateur ! ... God must have loved them, he made so many." - Me

Carrying a fake gun in NJ is punishable up to 5 years in prison? I think using a fake gun, otherwise known as a facsimile firearm, as a prop in a photo shoot might be considered a Class D misdemeanor but I doubt it.

Looks pretty much like a real SVD. Is it real or not? In US - may be. If so, it may be loaded, even unintentionally. If loaded, it can occasionally fire. Or fire on purpose. All kind of crazy people live around, you don't know what's on their mind. Calling the police is quite normal for this situation.

Camera are used for taking pictures of subjects, often people are subjects of photos. people who use cameras that take photos are photographers. Photographers compose photos with their subjects to create pictures.

Nikonmojo, the United States is obligated by both its own laws passed by Congress, and by international law that Congress has ratified, to hear out the cases of asylum seekers. To put it another way, asylum seekers are entitled to present themselves to the United States government and have their cases be heard.

Since the current administration is (illegally) refusing to accept asylum seekers at official points of entry, some have elected to cross the border at unofficial points, then present themselves to the CBP. This is a Class A misdemeanor— the equivalent of a parking ticket in many cities. If you think parents should lose custody of their children for the equivalent of a parking ticket, you have no moral standing on which to judge anyone’s violation of the law. You are morally bankrupt, and I have nothing more to discuss with you. And if you claim to follow the Christian God, as so many border extremists do, know that you are going straight to hell for your inhumanity.

The onslaught of poor people without an education flooding into one of the most expensive states in the union, and bringing their poor cultural norms with them that are incompatible with what most educated, well doing Americans consider ideal and for the betterment of the country (and respective neighborhoods and counties)? + the huge homeless demographic that the state practically fostered?

Pray for that to be reversed because the state and local governments are clueless.

California, with its influx of “disease ridden poor people”, also contributes more to our national wealth than any other state. By themselves, they are the eighth largest economy in the world.

If you are going to spout unabashedly racist or xenophobic diatribe, include what state you are from — because I’m willing to bet it’s a slacker state, sucking up more money from the federal budget than it contributes. In other words, speaking of sucking, most of you deplorables suckle at the teat of California’s wealth, because its contribution to the national coffers pays for your state’s very ability to exist.

So going forward, include your locality. And don’t even bother speak of “states’ rights”, because you obviously have no respect for the prerogatives of other states.

@TomHudsonVisual, CA's poor people (relatively speaking) don't contribute much to the nation's or state's wealth. CA is a "rich" economy due to the non-poor demographic in the sectors that boost CA's economy the most unlike the *relatively* small Ag business, irrespective of how many nuts we export (..or deport). How 'bout fact checking.

CA is one of the poorest, fiscally irresponsible states in the union with steady financial and aesthetic declination in cities across the state largely because of differences in living, education, and upkeep standards of the poor + immigrants entering the state (fact), who also have babies they can't afford at an increased rate over other demographics (fact); having an increased affect on perpetuating the welfare state (fact).

I don't "respect" CA's government actions, especially when CA tries to tax me to death to cover the poor. I hang my hat in CA, FL & IN (meaning actual ownership spanning 50 yrs; watching changes for the worse) You?

@TomHudsonVisual 'If you are going to spout unabashedly racist or xenophobic diatribe'and then..'include what state you are from — because I’m willing to bet it’s a slacker state'

Mate.. nice bit of hyperbolic/imaginary outrage over something you perceived as racist or xenophobic... only to attempt picking on on others because of where they come from. Your hypocrisy is thick.. and if anyone is gonna win a prize for being xenophobic it looks like you're the only one in the running. Brilliant bit of twisted psychology there..

Nice try, fmian. I’m from Arkansas. I know the dipsh*ttery firsthand because I personally grew up with it, and worked for the rich pricks who get richer by propagating xenophobic trash narratives to the working class that the other commenter above is doubling down on.

Ethnonationalism is embraced only in fear. It was the Irish. The Italians. The Catholics. The Jews. The Chinese. The Japanese. The black descendants of slaves. The Mexicans. The Muslims. And now the central Americans.

Anyone who is different. The fearmongering is always the same. “Disease” and “crime”. That was literally the origin of white bread. It was said to be healthier and more sanitary than the multigrain bread of immigrants. Get over it. Go mash your wonderbread between your gums in a padded room and let the rest of the world live their lives. You are all from immigrant families.

Yeah I don't care where you're from. What I care about is whether I'm hearing common sense or hypocrisy. Are you even aware of what's going on in LA/California regarding the homeless or are you just here to generalise about people while trying to call out others for generalising?

@TomHudsonVisual, speaking factually isn't racist, fear mongering, or xenophobic. There are cultural and personal differences that are degrading what services and businesses are available in respective cities in CA. There are increased fees that responsible people are having to pay because of the increasingly irresponsible demographic. That's irrefutable fact.

Immigrants-at-large aren't the issue. **A very specific demographic of immigrants is the issue here in CA. The Indian guy studying robotics and EE. overstaying his VISA isn't isn't the issue The German family paying $40k in property tax and employing people at their eatery isn't the issue. The African guy here for med school isn't the issue. Syrian trying to pass all 6 CPA exams isn't the issue. The RN from the Philippines isn't the issue.

The issue is the homeless & immigrants from the south who *per capita*, overwhelmingly add to the run-down nature of the areas they inhabit. Debate that f-a-c-t.

"... and *worked for* the rich pricks who get richer by propagating xenophobic trash narratives to the working class."

Exibit A

Perhaps if you spent more time actually learning how most financially independent people become that way, you might've circumvented having to work for the rich and instead employed the poor and middle class... like wealthy people most often directly and indirectly do. In the same vein while earning a viable advanced degree that industry actually needs and is willing to pay you for, you might've also learned to form arguments based on actual facts as opposed to quick-to-quip red herrings and irrelevancy... as you sit here on a site owned by the same kind of people you whine about.

You're like the hypocrite whining about "rich people" while using Facebook (or an Amazon product) as their sounding board as opposed to creating a better social media hit.

@Arastoo Vaziri, Earthquakes were felt here in CA recently. If one destroyed infrastructure and services, what demographic is less likely to own their home, have adequate insurance & earthquake protection? The homeless and poor.

You call me repulsive for being factual; when hundreds of thousands of people are homeless without the backing of adequate insurance, that becomes a direct and pressing issue for CA and the federal government. Reality can be ugly.. it's still r-e-a-l-i-t-y.

Pay attention to the results of the hurricane (Oct 2018) along the U.S. Gulf Coast and how services were drained, etc.. I'm speaking from what I know first hand (in CA and FL). Too many people didn't (FL) and don't (CA) have proper insurance, which isn't primarily the fiscally responsible demographic making up that reality. The influx of the poor is making it worse; increasing out police, fire and services requirement which is less per capita for other demographics. Fact check that.

Teila, we can exchange facts, like findings that show immigrants are less likely to engage in crime and are more upwardly socially mobile than Americans-by-birth —or we could examine absurd fantasies that our economy is not actually dependent upon low income employees, and if everyone just works hard and gets advanced degrees we can all be magically rich and self-employed— but it doesn’t matter, because studies also show (Exhibit A) conservatives become more entrenched when presented with contradictory data.

Curious, fmian, are aborigines human yet? Funny you come around to comment on Americans talking about guns when your country fixed the problem in a manner far left of California. Don’t tell these people about your universal healthcare, public education, or higher minimum wage / lower poverty rate on the penal colony either. You’re basically a socialist moocher in their eyes. Do tell Anning the final solution is eggs.

@TomHudsonVisual Bwahahaha.. this is hilarious. You're like a vernacular performance artist. Imposing a self righteous moral position without knowing you've manifested into the very thing you claim to despise. It gives me chills! I feel alive! Thank you!

@TomHudsonVisual: " like findings that show immigrants are less likely to engage in crime and are more upwardly socially mobile than Americans-by-birth"

Immigrants from where specifically? India? China? Sudan? Latvia?

"Socially mobile"?

Give us some facts on how *f-i-n-a-n-c-i-a-l-l-y* sound the demographic is pouring in from the southern boarder and how they compare per capita to *other immigrants* upon entry to this country and 10 years later.

Crime? Look at a "crime map" of cities across CA and throughout the San Joaquin Valley; perhaps you'll notice what's obvious to most reasonably educated adults. See the dark shaded areas? Per capita, who mostly makes up those areas?

Perhaps you can do a photography related expose' showing how those areas are really relatively crime free and aesthetically pleasing (sarc).. We don't need more people taxing resources irrespective of where they hail from or look like; at the same time, let's not pretend to be blind to obvious trends.

@Arastoo Vaziri If you can't answer a question with common sense or at least some form of civility then you lose the argument. Thank you.

I didn't even know we were talking about immigrants until the wackos here made accusations of racism or something. Meanwhile I'm talking about homeless Americans being shuffled from once city to another and ending up in LA cause they let homeless people do whatever they want there.

Muricca: Everyone carries a gun because they think they have the rights to

Also Muricca: Gets triggered by a girl in a dress carrying a replica Dragunov sniper with only one hand "because it might be real" (Do you know how much a real one weighs? No normal person can carry it).

That's a cosplay of Rider class of Altria Pendragon from Fate Grand Order. I don't think the rifle resembles a real one. At all.

Carrying a firearm is not something a few disillusioned United States citizens mistakenly "think" they can do; it is a right the citizens of this country enjoyed for many years before anyone considered it a habit of a crazy person, or that making gun-free areas were a fantastic way to prevent gun related crime.

Laws prohibiting carrying firearms (which are intended to reduce crimes involving firearms) only disarm people who respect that law, not those who do not.

A non-law abiding citizen could be reasonably assured the majority of potential victims would not have the tools to provide a balanced response to their aggression. It doesn't take much imagination to realize the potential to get shot is highly discouraging. As a law abiding citizen, I would avoid areas where I would be concerned that I could get shot by a non-law abiding citizen. Non-law abiding citizens may avoid areas where their victims would have the means to shoot back in defense.

And DPReview becomes a political discussion just like that. Anyone who is going to bring a sniper rifle to a photo shoot damn well better know what the local laws are and how law enforcement are going to respond before they get themselves in jail or shot by the police or by someone else with a weapon thinking they are a hero.

I don't understand the logic of many of the comments posted under this story.if a citizen calls the police to report a person at the beach with a sniper rifle, just what should the police do? Not respond because it's probably a replica?

Clearly they should spend the next 15 minutes trying to dig out information about what color it is, what shape, what length, how it's carried etc. Make sure the person with the rifle sees someone with a mobile phone staring at them whilst talking.

Unfortunately, there's been so many, many mass shootings at malls, mass shootings at elementary and high schools, mass shootings at universities, mass shootings at theaters, mass shootings at clubs, mass shootings at music concerts that it is imperative to report any sighting of a firearm these days.

@kristian2000 People will read what they want to read and make up their own imagined reality just to have a whinge about it. Says a lot about that persons mental condition and how they might affect others just by talking to them.

hmayle, Cops gunning down a 10 year old? That's your scenario? I don't know where you live but the cops where I am are pretty smart. Maybe the problem where you live is idiot neighbors who are afraid of their own shadow and would call the cops in a panic claiming "there's an active shooter with an ASSAULT RIFLE!" if they saw a 10 year old with a BB gun. I suspect you're that type...

Hard to believe that in my lifetime, I was able to grow up playing with Mattel guns that were intended to be replicas (well, from a distance.) But it was so rare to see anyone besides the police with a gun, kids could just enjoy themselves.

Hard to believe that in my lifetime we used to carry actual shotguns down the main drag of our little town on our way hunting. We all had side by side doubles and carried them open, no one gave us a second glance. Wouldn't do it now. I'm in Canada by the way.

"When we were kids there weren’t mass shootings occurring every other day."

Except that there aren't, if you go by the FBI definition.

If you go by the more recent definition from the left-wing anti-gun crowd, you could say that, but then you'd have to recognize that the vast majority of those are gang-related, urban, and a particular demographic group is involved. There's a reason the FBI doesn't count those...

There are over 20 million "mad" citizens, who are legally entitled to carry a loaded firearm in the US. To the contrary, this group is much less likely to commit a firearm offense than a sworn police officer. They don't even get as many traffic tickets.

If you want to play with plastic guns, do it in Utah. People there are used to seeing firearms, and a higher percentage of Utah residents actually carry than in any other state, yet the violent crime rate is half that of London.

Of course, because when you want to make valid crime rate comparisons between two locations, you would naturally pick a large European city of more than 8 million people and a rural US state with a population of about 3 million. Yep, you’ve convinced me; let’s make firearms even easier to get and have lots of people carry them. What could go wrong?

Yes, you are right. 20 millions mad citizens "legally" carrying weapons. Cigarettes and alcohol are also legally but kill... Can stupidity be legal ?About police officer, you are right. If you are black with a fake gun, you are already dead... even if you are a child.

@teiki rii, your comparison doesn't make sense, with cigarettes and alcohol, you're just accelerating your own death, but you're not really disturbing the random person on the street and the process takes a long time so you can get treated, so it's completely fine to be legal; however with a gun, it's quite the opposite, you can kill a random person by accident, and in an instant, there's no treatment, it's too late, so that's about 1 million times more dangerous, and should not be legal.

@polup, you are right, I am excessive. Nevertheless, as long as lobbying is present and powerful thanks to "big business", human rights can't take place. Especially in "big" countries where money rules, where democracy is just a fake...

@Darngoodphotos.... when was morality higher? When men beat their wives and it was legal? When women got felt up in the workplace and it was a business cultural norm? When minorities were discriminated against in the most blatant manner? When police could act with impunity?

Bad morals haven’t changed one bit- only the tech and social landscape around them. MAGA = fallacious speak wrapped in fantasy, served on a bed of lettuce.

@TomHudsonVisual, nah, you can still repress them by calling them "Uncle Tom" if they stray off the Democrat plantation or aborting them before they're born, or perpetually make them dependent on government, or beat them up while you were a black mask in the name of "anti-fascism" without worrying about being held accountable.

If there is any country in the world where I would not think of doing something like that, it's in the USA ... The level of paranoia is such that I would not even dare to shoot with a large telephoto lens, it's not like the police going to shoot you (which is very likely) is that you may be shootat for a "real patriot" guy, thinking that stops a terrorist threat, delirious ....By the way, if a mobile phone can be mistaken with a weapon, the next tele-objective and near an airport with what?!?!

While there are some reported incidents, living in the USA feels nothing like the country you just described. Typically the only guns I see are in gun racks during hunting season and only in rural areas with few people around. I've never seen anyone carrying a gun in "public" situations other than in hunting areas.

The reality is that this kind of gun toting (fake or not) is so unusual that that it gets reported widely. If it were so common, it wouldn't be news.

And not using a telephoto lens for fear of getting mistaken for a gunman? That's just plain irrational.

Phil, you are so correct. Here in Indiana, open carrying a firearm is legal for those who hold a conceal carry permit. That includes slinging a rifle over your shoulder and walking publically down the street. However, I have yet to see one single person ever open carrying a firearm other than in rural areas during hunting seasons. Do some open carry in cities and towns. Yes, however, the number is very low. Also, I do carry a handgun concealed on a very regular basis; however, though it's legal for me to do so here in Indiana, I would never open carry a firearm. It simply draws too much attention to yourself, from good guys and bad guys alike. BTW, one of my best friends is very liberal (yes, some of conservatives have liberal friends) and quite the antigunner. Though he recently admitted to me that he feels safer when we are both in public (having coffee or out to dinner dinner) because I'm usually carrying a handgun concealed.

@racin06 While I live in Seattle, my wife comes from farming country in eastern Washington. We own several thousand acres of wheatland and go back there fairly often. Very rural. Hunting is common. And, yet you never see people carrying guns openly except maybe as they are getting out of their car and heading out to hunt. It's a tool for them, not a political statement. I'm not a libby and appreciate that the hunters eat what they kill but find the whole idea of open carry simply too provocative for a civilized society. In theory, people with carry permits have more training and understand that an open carry provocation can easily lead to a shooting. In practice only a tiny handful defy that. Too bad it's those morons that get so much attention.

I don`t know, I live in a country where only the police carry guns, and they take great care to use them. My hypothetical children can go to class with total security that they are not going to be shot, teachers are not armed would be unthinkable, here they give you a set of dishes when you open an account in a bank, they give you a weapon there is delirious. How many people die by guns in the USA in one year? 40,000 people, 12 deaths per 100,000 people.

In my country, 0.15 people die per fire gun of every 100,000 (1.5 people per million).So yes, your country is safe, more than mexico and Gaza ... You have no problem with weapons.

@UllerellU You need to get out more, the world isn't that scary of a place. You're many times more likely to die from slipping and falling in your shower than you are to be shot and killed by police mistaking your telephoto for a weapon.

@kristian2000. That's the beauty of statistics. You don't need to get out, or wait until you are personally murdered before saying to yourself, "oops, should have listened to Ullerellu." You only have to look at the numbers and say, "damn, 12 vs 1.5? I'm eight times more likely to be murdered? Maybe something is wrong with my country." Freedom! Murica!

No, it's not 12 versus 1.5, it's 12 versus 0.15. The difference is remarkable, only in Mexico & Turkey more people die by firearms. You do not need to get my comments out of context, I'm not saying it's a battlefield, but you obviously have a problem with weapons. And it would be as easy to solve as to adopt more civilized policies on the sale and use of guns, such as those we have in Europe.

I love how people cherry-pick statistics and ignore reality. The vast majority of people live their lives untouched by the kind of outrages that we read about. I suppose it's human nature for someone to presume they are superior to others and grab onto any bits of data to prove it while ignoring those that don't.

Yes, any excuse and justification is good for not doing self-criticism ... It is a very mature reasoning. Here there is no possible interpretation, USA is in the top 3 countries with violent deaths by guns from around the world, and the other two are countries considered "poor" and with serious social problems. There is no way to turn this around to soften it, reality is painful, but it is reality. And there is no moral superiority, I can list a million things that are wrong in my country.

Good to hear that you don't think your country is perfect but the point isn't that some of us are minimizing the gun violence issue. The point is that you are painting a picture of the USA that simply isn't correct. For example, you are 4.5 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than get murdered (includes all kinds) in the USA. I don't hear you or others saying how terrible the USA is because of that. There are all sorts of causes of death that are well ahead of gun violence. I don't hear you decrying those.

I personally would like to see more gun regulations to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unsound but let's keep this all in perspective.

The rate of homicides in the USA (including all not only guns) is greater than that of any country in the European Union, I specifically live in the country with the lowest homicide rate. Personally, I like that my compatriots are not homicidal, I also like that they do not go armed without any kind of control. I can have a traffic accident, but it is not the same ... The rate of accidents and deaths on the road is higher in the USA than in the rest of the first world countries, deaths related to drugs are also greater ... I think that is due to the laws, there must be laws to be able to coexist in a civilized way.But USA is the land of freedom. God bless America! There are many more people who are not killed than those who are, many more people who do not die from traffic accidents than they do, and the same with drugs or lack of medical care, so there is no reason to worry, everything is great. Is that your logic, no? Let's leave it here, it does not make sense.

@ All the idiots screaming that London has a higher murder rate than NY: WRONG!

London had a higher murder rate than New York for two months in all of history: February and March of 2018. London never had a higher murder rate than New York on an annual basis. Even when we look at the first quarter of 2018: January through April, New York had a higher murder rate than London.

Saying London has a higher murder rate than New York is like saying, "WOW! New Mexico has a wetter climate than the Amazon rain forest! Because it rained in NM this week but not in the Amazon!"

Say what you want to about London's murder rate, but 65 attacks in London by knife thus far this year with 33 fatal is rather shocking. Further, most of these knife murders are occurring in public places and on the streets. Regarding my personal safety, I will take any U.S. city over London because I have the option of carrying a concealed firearm in may U.S. cities. I guess I would have the option of carrying a knife in London ;).

Of course, firearms for self defense have proven to be very safe and have saved many lives ... I'm leaving, this is a photography site, enough of vacuous speeches, you'll know. My cameras are the only thing I intend to shoot, and it's the only thing I want people to shoot around me.

BeaverTerror, the fact that the murder rate was EVER higher in London v. NYC flies in the face of the argument that guns are the problem. We're talking cities with populations in the millions. The "idiots", as you like to say, are the ones who claim guns are the problem. In a country with several hundred million guns in circulation, if guns were the problem you'd know it. Kind of like Bloomberg blaming sodas for obesity and diabetes...THAT kind of idiot.

racin06,"Though he recently admitted to me that he feels safer when we are both in public (having coffee or out to dinner dinner) because I'm usually carrying a handgun concealed."If you need to carry a gun to feel safer when being out for a coffee or dinner, either you are too paranoid...or your country does have a big problem !

I'm certainly not paranoid, I have good situational awareness and I prefer to be prepared. Bad things happen in all places. Sure, I acknowledge that there is a discussion to be had regarding the firearms murders and mass shootings in the U.S. However, your very own country of France has also seen it's share of mass shootings committed by Islamic jihadists. Further, mass murder has been committed in France by running people over with large trucks. I would want to be armed in France, U.S. or any other place in the world.

Karroly, good for you. But for those of us who do carry, we aren't paranoid, we're simply prepared. I don't plan on having a car accident but I wear a seatbelt. I don't plan on having a house fire but I have a fire extinguisher. I don't plan on needing to defend myself with a firearm but I recognize there is evil in this world and likewise I'll be prepared...it's better to have and need not than to need and have not.

When the period becomes too short, the data becomes useless. Hundreds of incidents per year is not a high number of data points, which means monthly occurrences occasionally (twice in history) flip over. However, this does not mean London has a higher rate than New York.

You are cherry picking the rare random noise to support a conclusion you prefer. I think you probably understand this, but are pretending to be ignorant in order to argue your point of view. You have the right to ignore reality and dream up your own fantasy, of course. Just don't get offended when people start telling you to go back to school.

Enjoy your guns while you still have them. Demographics in America are changing. Young voters are overwhelmingly Democratic and the baby boomers are starting to die off. You probably have about ten years left before gun rights start evaporating.

FYI sodas are a large contributor to obesity. Drink a cup of sugar = become fat. If you currently drink four sodas a day (520 calories of Coca Cola), but starting tomorrow you switch to only water, the math says you will begin to lose roughly a pound every eight days (46lb / year thinner). Everybody in the world knows this.

If you do not understand this, I'd say you have bigger problems than guns. America is the most violent AND the fattest developed country on Earth. Double threat.

Yes, Baby Boomers are aging; however, you are underestimating the number of Democrats that own firearms. I know many Democrats who are liberal on many of the major political issues; however, they are also 2nd Amendment hawks and own firearms. You also underestimate the number of young Americans who own firearms. I know with certainty that at least 1/2 of the people I see at my local indoor gun range are not Baby Boomers...I see many Millennials. I also talk to these Millennials and they claim that many of their friends own firearms. Of course, the media provides a different perception, but that perception is incorrect. Lastly, there are nearly 400 million firearms in the U.S. The confiscation of firearms by the Federal Government will never happen. Any attempt to confiscate firearms from lawful U.S. citizens to do so would result in mass civil unrest and perhaps even a very bloody civil war.

You are completely correct. Existing guns would be grandfathered in. It would not be an overnight change, but a reduction that will occur over decades. I personally think firearm are great for sporting use; however there is no need for high magazine capacity semi automatic rifles on the civilian market.

BeaverTerror, your proclamation that I am "wrong" is in itself, wrong. You're essentially saying that guns (which are INANIMATE objects) cause crime. They no more cause crime than the sugary drinks you spoke about cause obesity. Approximation does not equal causation. The MISUSE of guns "contributes" to crime and the MISUSE of high sugar drinks contribute to obesity. Your claim that American gun rights will evaporate is patently false because it is that very right that will ensure that doesn't happen. The British learned that lesson the hard way and we "fat" Americans are happy to teach it again. And we don't care what you think we "need" regarding "high magazine capacity semi automatic rifles on the civilian market." If only your government has such weapons what, exactly, do you think keeps them from turning them on you?

If nearly 400 million existing firearms would be “grandfathered in” I don’t see how there would be any net reduction over decades of time. Also, I own the below two semi-automatic rifles (or “assault rifles” as negatively known by many) and both accept high-capacity 30 round magazines in which I use. I own these rifles for “sporting use.” Though I also dedicate the Mk4 9mm as a home defense firearm, as well. I do quite a bit of target shooting, and I participate in a few local shooting competitions, in which I enjoy very much. Owning and shooting firearms is primarily a hobby for me, just like my photography and RC airplane hobbies (I have some expensive hobbies…yikes!). By the way, CMMG is a great company located in Boonville, Missouri and they manufacture rifles in 13 different calibers, which is amazing! Good quality rifles!

There is no need to argue over whether guns can float into the air and shoot magically. Everyone knows they cannot. The reality is that people everywhere will misuse the weapons they have access to. It is much harder to kill 50 people in ten minutes by misusing a knife, than by misusing a gun. It takes effort and skill to beat someone to death. It takes neither to shoot someone to death. Even the weakest imbecile has the strength to lift a hand a move a finger. Not surprisingly, it often the most cowardly who feel the most need to own guns, because they are constantly terrified of being attacked by someone stronger.

Case in point: America has by far the highest murder rate of any first world nation. Either guns make it convenient for people to kill each other, or, Americans are simply culturally corrupt, barbaric, inhuman criminal beasts.

BeaverTerror, you can also "easily" drive your car down a crowded sidewalk. What stops YOU from driving YOUR car down a crowded sidewalk?

You claim gun owners are cowards. Seriously? What is more coward? For me to own a gun because I know evil exists or YOU advocating that some "benevolent" government (with guns nonetheless) take my guns on YOUR behalf because you fear me, an "imbecile?"

Regarding your comment on the murder rate in the US, I would remind you that most countries don't keep statistics on murder rates let alone distinguish between justifiable homicides versus murder. You fear "the people" having access to guns yet you blindly trust "the people" in government being the only ones with guns of the most potent variety. I'll trust an armed populace every day of the week over the "enlightened" elite.

nikonmojo,I am just back from vacations, so my late answer.Let me tell you this : Ha, Ha, Ha !When people call others idiots, this is usually a sign they are short on arguments...Or you are just too simple, narrow-minded to understand irony.Make your choice...

Nikonmojo, "do not keep track of murder statistics"? I have lived in six countries (five outside America), and visited over thirty. I assure you, all first world nations track murder statistics.

You clearly have never traveled abroad in your life. Please, stop being so backwards: save some money, buy a plane ticket, and educate yourself. Or are you too terrified to go anywhere you cannot take your gun? You claim you are not a coward, but you live in a "reality" (your own word) where you are too weak to defend yourself without a boom boom stick, lol... I am convinced all you gun people are over compensating for lacking somewhere else.

BeaverTerror, Nah, I've never traveled abroad. Only 27 years in the US Army...2 years in Iraq with armor units, a year in Afghanistan with an infantry unit, multiple operational tours in places I can't name. I'm hardly terrified of anything, least of which is a keyboard warrior like yourself who pretends to know jack about me. I've been in multiple firefights...not just keyboard sniping like yourself. I suspect you live in some gated community and have the advantage of living a protected life to have the gall you do to tell others what they do and don't need to defend themselves from the predators of this world. I'm convinced all you gun hating people are compensating for being scared of your own shadow and want ARMED jackbooted government thugs to do the job you are incapable of doing yourself...i.e. defending yourself. At the same time you refuse to acknowledge the FACT that (in the US) the government has NO DUTY to protect the individual. THAT is reality.

Lol jackbooted government thugs. Wait, aren't you yourself one of these armed government goons you are referring to?

No, I live in Harlem, New York, one of the most crime infested places in the United States, by reputation.

I respect veterans and the military; however, you are clearly messed up from a life time of getting shot at, and have some sort of paranoia mental disorder. You need to seriously reevaluate your "reality" because you sound like some kind of crazed forest bunker survivalist, not a sane normal person.

NEWSFLASH! The rest of us are not living in a war fantasy wet dream. Please, keep your weapons of war in the military where they belong. Civilians do not need 100 round capacity drum magazines like the guy use this month to shoot up El Paso. Those who wish to exercise their legitimate right for self defense can use shotguns, the most effective weapon for home defense. I fully support the right to own arms and the right for self defense. I do not support rifles that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, that can easily be illegally modified to become automatic, and that can shoot thirty or a hundred rounds into a classroom of children without needing to be reloaded. There is no legitimate use in self defense for this kind of thing.

If you support this, you support making mass child murdering easier for criminals. Instead of having to reload, you wish for criminals to be able to dump rounds into the bodies of children as fast as possible. Having a few children be shot is not enough for you. You hope for dozens or hundreds be shot. As quickly and conveniently as possible for the gunman pulling the trigger! There is some kind of DISEASE going on with people like you. I truly hope you do not reproduce.

Beaver Terror, go back and listen to yourself. You ramble like a crazed lunatic and yet you worry about people like me who revere liberty. You have no understanding of the Constitution, liberty, how weapons work, how laws don't affect those who break them BY DEFINITION, and on and on and on. Name the law that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't exist. And like it or not, YOU don't get to decide what kind of guns I need. Deal with it.

Your words prove my point exactly: you're clearly one of those insane survivalists. This seems to be a very common thing among those who become mentally ill after the military.

I wouldn't be surprised if you end up in the news in the near future, having finally gone full rabid and shot up a kindergarten.

There is a great solution for getting rid of crazies like you: Ruby Ridge. Or, better yet, there should be some sort of mental illness test in the military. For those people such as you who fail, you should be forced to remain in the third world desert s-hole you volunteered to fight in, because you were gullible enough to believe in George Bush's made up fairy tale weapons of mass destruction lol...

BeaverTerror, I think it's clear to the world which one of us is mentally ill. But I'll leave you with this: if the day comes that my firearms are deemed illegal to own I want YOU to come take them. You don't deserve the blanket of freedom that I, and people like me, provide to you to run your insane and incoherent mouth. People like you don't even know which bathroom to use. Now go back to your mom's basement, fix your man bun, drink your soy boy latte and if you ever grow a set of testicles I invite you to put me in my place.

BeaverTerror, I must have hit a sore spot since you assume I called you gay. I just said you had no testicles...i.e. a eunuch. Ironic how you denigrate members of the military calling us mentally ill yet you only want them (and not the citizenry) to possess the "fake metal p*nis." Are you a paranoid schizophrenic eunuch? And I still want YOU to volunteer to come and take my "fake metal p*nis." Maybe you can bring me a cup of coffee when you do....no latte, soy boy.

P.S. You were born to be a sheep. "Oh, gov't protect me from those evil mentally ill military people...oh wait, that means those mentally ill military and police people must protect me from those mentally ill civilians who believe in personal liberty and responsibility." You put the idi*t in useful idi*t.

I just hope you don't take your metal p*nis and shoot a load into your own mouth, like so many of your military brothers seem to be doing these days, because... you tell me... the realization you spent the best years of your youth in some sh*t hole; watching your friends get killed looking for "WMDs" that turned out to be a joke fantasy; coming back home and realizing you have few professional skills for today's high tech employers; watching many of your bros become depressed, alcoholic, or homeless; realizing people back home have no respect for you because they think your war was a mistake; seeing people around you who are younger, yet wealthier than you, because they stayed home and got master's degrees in engineering and other high paying professions while you were away.

Damn, I don't blame you. I'd be putting a tarp up on the wall behind my head too. But, let me applaud you for fighting WMDs. Clap. Clap. Clap. Three slow claps for you. Well done sir, well done. Good life path.

I'm sorry. What I said about the military was not appropriate and I apologize. It was wrong of me to write those things. I actually do appreciate your service, truly.

However, I disagree with your position on guns. I hope one day the two sides of this debate can find common ground, so we can have a society that is both free and safe, as you have dedicated your life to ensuring. Good night.

BeaverTerror, and I wonder why you're not one of those intellects who "stayed home and got master's degrees." More likely you majored in adult bedwetting....maybe you got a PhD in that. You're not worthy to be in the company of those you denigrate. But I guess we've done our job since you're able to flap your gums with vile proficiency not having to worry about repercussions. I challenge you to go find a soldier or Marine and tell them to their face what you spewed above from the safety of mom's basement. But you won't because you're a eunuch.

I actually am one of those who stayed home and got a master's degree. I'm a real estate developer, same as the president. I remind you that the president also stayed home from Vietnam to get his degree.

Anyway, I have apologized. I hope you are able to get over your bitterness, but I understand if you cannot. By the way I checked your gallery and you are an excellent photographer, much better than me.

If you're sincere I gladly accept your apology. It may surprise you to learn that many in the military are highly educated. I happen to be a physician. But even the lesser educated have literally VOLUNTEERED to put their very lives on the line for each and every American. You don't have to agree with the politicians and policies that put our troops where they are but know this: they are willing to DIE for you if necessary. How can anyone not respect that? We can agree to disagree on the policies of this country under any president but to denigrate those who have sworn to defend the Constitution and you and I (and write a blank check with their lives to do so) is a bit too far. They should be entitled to a little more respect.

Yes, my apology is sincere. I went back and read what I wrote and realized how wrong it was. My comments were not appropriate.

I actually think guns are a great hobby and support responsible gun ownership. I have never felt that guns should be illegal; however, I believe there should be universal background checks and licensing for certain classes of weapons, to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands. I cannot see why truly law abiding gun owners would object to this common sense policy, given we are all accepting of common sense restrictions in other areas, such as requiring licensing to operate vehicles so we are not all killed by incompetent drivers. Those people who are truly responsible gun owners should be accepting of this minor inconvenience, so we can keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and ameliorate America's gun violence epidemic. The way I see it, those who object to background checks must have something to hide.

Fair enough. And I apologize for my insults. Now that we have toned down our rhetoric I would ask you, specifically, what additional "background check" would you want? Even if you went as far as outright banning of all privately owned firearms (which I certainly do not support) the one class of people who would still have them is the criminal element. So name the law that would keep them out of the hands of people who commit heinous acts. It escapes me how intelligent people can suspend logic in favor of emotional answers. And if you banned certain classes of firearms how do you take them out of circulation? And would you trust the same gov't that involves our country in conflicts you don't agree with to be the only entity with that same (actually greater) firepower? It's counterintuitive to me. Lastly, these so-called "assault weapons" function no differently from any auto-loading semi-automatic firearm. Come up with an answer that only affects criminals and we can talk.

Are you still with this? It is a cultural, social, educational issue. My grandfather died with 98 years, in his civilian life he was never pointed with a weapon, not even with a white weapon, my father is 62 years old, nobody has pointed him with a weapon, I am 36 years old and the same. Yes, there may be some armed criminals around here but they are a minority. I have no fear, I don't live in fear. Two weeks after I got the car out of the dealership, I forgot to lock it one weekend, on the street, with the camera in the passenger seat, nothing happened. I lived at ground level, my windows was 1m high, without gates, in summer I slept with them open, I don't have any weapons at home, I don't need it, I live in a peaceful society, yes, there are some bad guys but a weapon would not make me feel safer, I am already safe. Here only the security forces, a minority of criminals and hunters carry weapons ... Why should there be more weapons? They are not necessary.

Background check: I believe people with a record of violent crime or certain types of mental illness should not be permitted to purchase firearms. The current situation of anyone being able to purchase firearms via online ads with zero checks makes no sense. The only people who have a reason to protest this idea are criminals. Legitimate law abiding gun owners have no excuse.

Taking firearms out of circulation: It is a fallacy to argue that firearms cannot be taken out of circulation, and therefore gun control laws will be ineffective. Nobody is suggesting that all firearms can be collected overnight. In reality, improvements occur over time, incrementally. For example, a five percent reduction in gun death rate will result in 2000 fewer Americans dying each year, comparable to the total US casualties in Afghanistan.

Criminals skirting the law: currently, any criminal can purchase firearms freely. If background checks become required, criminals must then either obtain firearms from other criminals, or steal them. It is harder to get a firearm off of another criminal, or to steal a firearm via robbery, as compared to simply online shopping for one. I believe as the total number of uncontrolled firearms declines over decades, there will be incremental improvements in opportunistic gun crime rates as criminals experience reduced access to firearms. I believe having fewer firearms in circulation will also have an incremental impact on suicide rates, as it is much easier and less painful to commit suicide by firearms, as compared to many other methods. (see five percent above).

I believe every life is important and that saving 5% of lives is better than saving 0% of lives, especially if 5% equals 2000.

Canada has 3.5 times fewer guns than the US, but 6 times fewer gun homicides (per capita). As Canada is virtually indistinguishable from the US in cultural aspects, I believe this effect is the result of Canada's gun laws reducing the ownership of guns among criminals and concentrating the majority of firearms in the hands of law abiding gun owners. I believe this situation of good guys having more guns than bad guys should be desirable for law abiding gun owners. Of course, a bad guy can always rob a good guy's house and get a gun; but bad guys inevitably get arrested eventually, and the weapon will be taken out of circulation. This is preferable to free online shopping for guns.

I believe gun laws cannot achieve their total potential immediately, as it may take decades to realize the gradual reduction of unaccounted firearms; nevertheless, America will still be around in the year 2119. I can plant a tree today without expecting it to reach full size in my own life time.

Individual states decide what the laws are regarding PRIVATE sales of firearms. Sales conducted by licensed dealers require the very checks you state are necessary. It is already ILLEGAL for a felon to buy let alone possess a firearm. Making it "doubly illegal" won't stop the criminal element. That is the definition of a criminal. They DO NOT ABIDE BY THE LAW.

Regarding taking firearms "out of circulation", your argument requires either ignoring the 2nd Amendment or repealing it. Those are the choices assuming you believe in a society governed by law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And a government that would ignore the Constitution is NOT a legitimate government.

How many times do we read stories of felons with guns committing more crimes? How many are roaming freely that probably should have never been released? Punishing the law-abiding majority with the flawed hope of stopping felons is foolish.

BeaverTerror, so, again, I ask you: what SPECIFIC gun law do you propose that would a) only affect the criminal element and, b) respect the 2nd Amendment?Your goal seems to focus on controlling inanimate objects rather than affecting BEHAVIOR of those who misuse them. Would you support life sentences or the death penalty (in the case of murder) for people who commit felonies with a firearm? Would you support harsh sentences for people who lie on their form 4473 when purchasing a firearm?

If your goal is truly to protect innocent lives while not infringing on individual liberties i.e. law abiding citizens, you have my support. If, however, your approach is to disregard the Constitution I will oppose you to the bitter end.

I do not support forcefully taking firearms out of the hands of legal owners. I wish to remove them from the hands of people who should not have them. I believe unrestricted private sale of firearms should not be allowed, in the same way you cannot sell your house without filing with your local government registry. Nobody seems to be complaining about the real estate sale process, so I do not understand what the big deal is about. The only people who should have a problem with this are those intending to hide their crimes.

In my opinion state regulations are ineffective, as there are no border controls between states.

I don't have strong feelings about the death penalty, as I believe life imprisonment is a more mentally punishing sentence than death. Death is a merciful gift when compared to being locked up for life.

People evolve, societies evolve, constitutions have to evolve, whenever it is to improve, and for the common good. Your main problem is that you were born about 170 years late. It is proven, weapons contribute to the increase in violent crimes, you can see that in other countries we do not have that problem, it is also a problem of education, the misunderstood "freedom". Your freedoms end where others' empires, live in a society, go with your Remington to the countryside, like Rambo, and live there in a cabin where you do not endanger anyone.

UllerellU, you're a pretty ignorant soul. So the fact that I own firearms poses a danger to you? Does your government possess weapons? I suspect yes so tell me how your government poses no threat to you. Has your country, whichever it is, "evolved" to the point it can be trusted implicitly?

BeaverTerror, I support your goal of keeping weapons out of the wrong hands. However, your analogy of real estate and guns is misplaced. You kind of glossed over the 2nd Amendment in that analogy. You shouldn't need permission to exercise a RIGHT. You didn't have to register with the FCC to comment on here. A law that infringes on Constitutionally protected rights is no law at all. It's disconcerting how cavalier some people are with rights they don't appreciate. They are rights nonetheless.

Insulting others you portray yourself, of course you pose a danger, at least one older than a person who does not possess weapons. My grandfather brought a gun from the war, in less than a week he threw it into a well, he was the most balanced and wisest person I've ever met. The bodies and security forces of my country carry firearms of course, but no one is police here, the psychological and aptitude tests are very hard, the police do not lightly take out the gun, for a pickpocket who from on the run, or by an unbalanced one that is altering the order, they take great care to take out their weapon, I think that last year there was only one shooting with dead, dangerous robbers who opened fire on the police and this responded, in a country of more than 50 million people is not bad.

I would pity you if it wasn't because you have what you want and what you deserve. I only feel sorry for all those people who have evolved and want to live in a safer and more civilized country and cannot because some still want to live in the wild west.

UllerellU, how rich that you tell me to go live in a remote cabin where I won't endanger anyone and then have the gall to accuse me of insulting YOU when I simply say you're ignorant. If you're that emotionally fragile and unstable of course you'll be threatened by the idea of a citizen owning a "dreaded" firearm. Why don't you tell us the name of the "perfect" country you live in? A "perfect" country where you are a mere SUBJECT of your government. I will gladly not "evolve" as it is I, not my government, who has the duty to defend myself and my family. And I damn sure don't give a rats' rear end what some foreigner thinks about it. Unlike you, I haven't "evolved" to the point where I can't recognize that evil exists in this world and I'm quite OK with that.

It is not a perfect country, at all, I do not think that exists, if it is simply more civilized and sure than yours. I am not afraid, I am not afraid of evil, I have been in the worst neighborhoods of the city, I have seen things worthy of a television series, I was never afraid in those situations and I did not carry a weapon, I did not need a weapon, precisely because I did not I am insecure and I am not afraid. I am simply intelligent enough to understand that weapons are a potential danger (as has been shown to satiety), it seems incredible that this must be explained. So stay happy in your idyllic western, I will continue to take my children to a school where they will never be shot, knowing that they will not have problems when they leave home. And if I have to defend mine, I will do it as is done in a civilized world, with the law, but if that were not enough I am enough man to be able to defend them without needing a weapon. Here the discourse ends.

UllerellU, well aren't your children lucky? You'll "defend" them with the law. So after your children are attacked (or, heaven forbid, murdered) your "law" will catch up with the perpetrator and hold them "accountable" after the fact. I'm sure your children will thank you. And I noticed you still didn't name the idyllic country you live in....you're too busy casting aspersions on other nations. And lucky for you that you're "man enough" to defend them without "needing a weapon." Good luck with that.

If you have so much interest... I will tell you that it is the one that "discovered" the continent where yours resides (although what my ancestors did there is not something I could feel proud of), an empire in whose vast domains the sun never set. We invented some toys that Americans like a lot, such as the submarine, the elicopter (autogiro actually), the diving and space suits, and the lollipops ... Among many other things. Although I would exchange all for a good glass of red wine and some slices of Iberian acorn-fed ham. We had a bloody civil war. We have had a incompetent politicians. In spite of our bloody past, in spite of fascism and dictatorship, in spite of incompetent politicians ... in spite of everything, we are one of the countries with the lowest crime rate in the world, one of the highest life expectancy in the world, the second most visited country in the world, having the largest number of beaches and ports with blue flags in the world, a safe and friendly country .

Don't get me wrong, one of my favorite disseminators had a predilection for the United States, for all that was achieved there for individual freedoms against the rancid aristocracy of our old Europe, and I completely agree. The problem that I see is that the market has won you the game, and that liberties have been misunderstood and degraded in many aspects (one of them the possession of weapons), in my humble opinion you should take a conscientious examination. Once you inspired the rest of the world, for several decades, freedoms, union conquests, music, culture, "we chose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is difficult" .... no longer. You are no longer avant-garde of anything, except for "paranoia", violence and military and arms power. Do not take it as a destructive criticism, but as a constructive criticism written from respect.

UllerellU, so, were the thousands who were executed by your late dictator, Franco, "paranoid?" Spare me your haughty lecture on the shortcomings of the US. You guys are late arrivals to the civilized world.

UllerellU, well, it was you who decided to take this story as an opportunity to impugn the US. And I would gladly "take stock" of our history relative to yours if you dare go there. I didn't start this discourse. Invariably some European feels the need to "educate" the US on how to be civilized while they rely on us time and again to save them from tyranny. We don't need your advice.

It may have been 20-odd years ago and in a totally different country, but we were trained to shoot dead anyone who pointed anything that looked like a firearm at us and arrest anyone on the spot who even joked about explosives. Police have no way of knowing what is real and what is fake and so our training back then defaulted always to real. Another problem is that the carrier of the fake rifle is unlikely to have any kind of training in firearms and may think it a great joke to point it at someone - then everyone is all sorry and sad when stupid winds up dead.

@alesIf you had a gun and someone aimed and pointed a gun at you what would you do? Anything is a better answer to doing nothing yes? When people know pointing guns, fake or not will get them shot, they dont do it

Context is everything. Here you have a scantily clad model carrying what looks to be a long, high powered rifle, followed by a photographer. They go about their business doing the photo shoot while ignoring other beachgoers, she posing, he photographing her. If the police were to arrive on the scene and fail to understand what's happening, they're not smart enough to be in law enforcement. And when it comes to accidents from mishandling guns, there's plenty of evidence to show that "trained" police are right up there near the top of the list with civilians. It's not so clear that guns are safer in the hands of police officers, who seldom draw or fire their weapons on duty, than in the hands of civilians who use them regularly for hunting or at the target range.

@BeaverTerror : “America is where police will execute people on sight.”

Amen! .. and *most* of those criminals should be put down like the dogs they are. If you committed a violent crime (I don’t care if it’s purse snatching) you deserve to be shot d-e-a-d.) if you’re putting the public, or might be an obvious danger to the public (waving a gun or sword around in a crowded parking lot after the cops tell you to drop it.. you should be put down.

Shot coming out of the library, minding your own business = cops fault (put the cop down in that case)

@Beaver... well, no... actually 'Merica is going the way of Ciudad Juárez if California is any indication. At least North Korea knows how to deal with a thief. The U.S. needs to take that class from N. Korea and maybe (along with other measures) we can cut crime around this country in half.

I agree I'm English. I have Scottish friends, who are Scots before they are British. In fact it's probably only the English who refer to being British, the other nationalities in the UK Pride themselves on their countries of birth. including many from the Commonwealth.

"defy common sense" for sure.... The idea that a toy rifle might be somehow decorated to show that it's a toy is supposed to allay concerns? Why not decorate a real rifle like a toy. Who's to make sense of all that?

Is it a toy bazooka or a real bazooka, a toy knife or a real knife, do you draw down a toy gun on a police officer, or flash your shiny cellphone in a dark alley. Do you walk on a dark street counting the money in your wallet, .... , do you stop to change your lens without help in an area active with pickpockets, do you leave your car keys on the hood, .... or your purse over the back of a chair, do you pose your wife for a photo in front of a bank on the Champs de Elysee.

There are rights, freedoms, Arizona and California, but where is "common sense".

Why is everyone concerned about the rifle? If I was a cop I'd be freaked out that Artoria Pendragon just dropped on to the beach. How are they supposed to figure out she was a fake Artoria Pendragon. Man, mind blown!

In today’s trigger happy society I can’t blame them folks with little ones calling the cops. The photographer should have known better and place a big sign stating this isn’t a real gun and it’s only a photo shoot prop.

Born in a country that has had its share of military invasions and still is home to a few of the world's largest military grave yards / gardens of peace -including some of the biggest USA ones- I never have been able to see a 'fun' aspect in someone carrying a real or imitation weapon. And in the hands of a beautiful girl .... to me it is borderline insanity.

Weapons are cool. Everyone thinks so. My daughter shoots me all the time with her hand ‘guns’ and slashed me with ‘swords’. Playing like you’re using or holding or just posturing with a fake weapon is a past time as old as... well toy swords and other weapons are found in old archeological digs.

"...values violence above anything else" - That's insane. Weapons have always been cool and always will be, violence practiced or not. I didn't learn about weapons by fighting a war or my dad teaching me to kill someone to defend myself or just to beat someone up.

I read books and played swords with my mates, and fashioned bows and arrows and learned crappy marksmanship. I've never had a real fight. I don't like war.

Gosh, man, not everything is a zero sum game. One thing can exist without another.

Weapons are designed specifically to kill. They have no other purpose. Thinking casually about them, and inventing toys that emulate them is only the consequence of living in the very society I talked about, the one that values violence above anything else. Emulating killing has nothing noble or playful in it. It is not a sport, it's just a way of rationalizing violence and making it acceptable. A consequence of a mentality deeply rooted in a still primitive society.

Society doesn't value violence above all else. That is insane. If it did, every one of us would be fighting rather than working or raising families, or playing games or shooting with digital cameras or talking on internet. We so little value violence that when it happens it is abhorrent to us.

Laws do not protect the violent or the criminal, they prosecute him or her. We try to protect those that were harmed by violence and even fight to put right wrongs. How you get the idea that we value violence above all is... well, you'll have to explain how you got to that conclusion. I can't fathom it.

Laws and prosecution of violence are just the consequence of brief periods of time when nonviolent people managed somehow to lead (or influence) and to impose a set of rules. That time has ended, and the barbarians have resumed their habits. Just look around you and see what common people values are: how abhorrently violent modern entertainment is, what praises are given to those "ruthless" people that build their wealth exploiting their peers, etc. Even your (and others') casual attitude about weapons and "cool" replicas of killing tools shows that we don't actually adhere to the nonviolent laws, we see violence as tempting, entertaining and fun. Yes, we are bound by those laws for now, but as violence returns as our main preference (we like seeing violence, we even pay for it), those laws may change, too.

Those laws have always been in place. What world do you live in? I agree that violent people are violent. But that goes for any proclivity. Those that fornicate with others's wives fornicate with others's wives. Those that don't don't. Would you generalise about everyone because a few do?

Again, strict laws against violence have always been at the core of civilisation. They are much more lenient today than they were in the past. Maybe you are a utopian idealist. Fine, but even so you should recognise that you're speaking distortions of reality.

I've not killed anyone nor has anyone I known killed anyone. I've not known anyone that was killed by another. Murder rate per 1000 people in most places is miniscule.

Read history. Laws that effectively deter violence are fairly new, and are only effective in few parts of the world. We are fortunate enough to live in those regions, but we don't realize how easily that fortune can be lost. The laws work for now, but... please also read the rest of my comments.

I should add that they don’t exist in vacuum, those laws reflected the moral and idealistic centres of civilisations. Even very primitive societies tend to have highly structured systems warding against violence and reflecting the desire for peace between people.

Very honestly: which history should I read to prove this otherwise?

Or better yet, please define violence with regards to law, deterrents, and other. Finally, are words violence or are they another category?

You are precisely right. Laws reflect the moral and idealistic principles of the people/society. And my point is that when people start (or rather revert to) finding violence as entertaining, it is a sign that those moral principles have changed fundamentally. Indeed, seeds of nonviolent principles can be found in many cultures. But how many of those "seeds" have actually managed to achieve the necessary "critical mass" to succeed in effectively protecting people from violence? In how many regions? Again, we are fortunate to live in such regions, but let's not fool ourselves: this is the exception, not the norm, and, as violence is praised by almost everyone, it looks like it's temporary.

Edit: to answer your question, yes, words can be violence too, and can do a lot of harm.

Thank you for the long answer. I think we simply have a different interpretation of humanity, and perhaps human nature. I know now one that worships or praises violence, though I think you might interpret that differently. That I find swords and other tools cool may make you think that I value violence .

For us, it seems that we have an ontological disagreement as I would never be able to categorise words as violence because ‘harm’ is defined almost at the individual level. Someone out there might consider what you’ve written to be violent, which is insane to me, but if words can be violence, it’s only logical that this conversation is categorical violence.

Not all words are violence. Civilized arguments, as I believe we had here, cannot be categorized as violence in any way. But there can be violence in words, it can do a lot of harm, and such violence was used repeatedly by many throughout the history.

As for our disagreement, yes, it may stem from different perspectives about the world, we obviously come frome different cultures, although they may have a common origin. However, morality has a common core present in all civilizations, and my point is that this core is becoming vulnerable in the current society, which became too comfortable with depicting, playing with, and allowing violence.

And it propels that bullet to seed flowers on your neighbor's garden? :) That bullet is specifically designed to be pointed at a living being in order to hurt it or make it live no more. Sports were added afterwards, and hunting is stil killing.

Edit: I am fortunate enough to live in a sane country where guns cannot be held by the masses.

You know, there are other ways to make the government behave than shooting them. And anyway, do you really believe your government is afraid of you because you have guns? Ha ha, they have much powerful weaponry than you! You still need the tools of democracy to keep them in check, as we do. All the masses can do with their own guns is shoot each other, which unfortunately, as news stories go, it seems already happens.

Well, families living in countries where school shootings are non-existent are pitiful, "bro"? Now, if violence is all you know, I suppose you can't imagine such countries do exist. You are welcome to visit Europe, though, if you are brave enough to travel without your beloved gun.

Thanks for providing me with valuable info. I didn't understand the reasons behind this strange American concept of owning guns, but now I see it's based on delusions (sure, you keep your government in check with your gun, keep saying it, it may become true), and macho bravado from the times of the Wild West. Good luck with that.

Also, until very recently Europeans were more easily able to own, trade, and use guns. Talking about a recent spate of laws as some historical norm is a little silly.

And everyone has access to the same data: banning guns doesn't lower levels of homicide across the board. Here in Japan a dude waded into a hospital and killed more than 20 people with a knife. Another dude hit people with a truck then stabbed seven people to death.

People that want to kill people will find a way.

I'm also a 'European' if only by birth and ethnicity. I was raised in Canada and the USA. In general the people killing others with guns are the sort that aren't abide by laws anyway. That is also common knowledge. The reason Europe has historically been less criminal is that it has fewer criminals in it. Today, it is diluting that non-criminal element at a rate that will totally destroy European smugness about guns in a decade if not already.

For your information, the military and police in Europe are not criminals, and basically they are the ones who have guns legally (with some exceptions, of course). They don't shoot the people with them, in fact rules on when they can use them are very strict. Politicians do not own guns either, so no, those who we elect to make decisions do not need weaponry to enforce them. In civilized countries you don't need a gun to protect your family, we are not in the Wild West, we have the rule of law, you know...

Being legal to own guns makes it a lot easier for real criminals to own them and harder for law enforcement to confiscate those from them. Owning or selling guns is a felony, so criminals are easier to arrest and prosecute just for that.

I find this highly offensive and I demand a retraction. Your hostility is becoming irritating and franky I believe your kind of extremism should be banned from these forums. We had enough far right bullies bragging about their stupid guns and their imagined white male righteousness, so I hope there is moderation here to cure this kind of hateful speech.

Dude, you're the only one in THIS thread talking 'white male' anything. And, it appears you're the only one wanting to force anyone to do anything, and how, I may ask? Banning implies authority, and, sure, at this level, it is just digital, but behind every threat of banning or censorship is the thing you abhor, a gun.

I'm not even a gun guy but geez, man, reflect a bit on the idea or principle you hold dear. There is no peace or absence of violence when in order to achieve either, you have to enforce it through violence or its threat.

Shigzeo, if you think that this guy taking repeatedly on my family is a proof of civilized behavior, then indeed you are in the same category of persons who condone hate speech. Bullies need authority to calm them down. That's why law was invented, and this is why civilized societies have trials and prisons for those who hurt people.

Edit: we don't find our own justice waving our guns. We seek the authorithies we put there through democratic means for the specific purpose of maintaining order without resorting to Wild West methods.

I didn't mention civilised behaviour, but while we're on it, calling the cops with guns for a guy saying mean things stemming from your abhorrence of violence and guns is absolutely stunningly insane. Civilised insanity, perhaps, but insane nonetheless.

As for condoning hate speech... what?

Do you seriously think that 'hate speech' is an objective standard? Anyone who wields the power of a society then defines what is hate as it regards action and speech.

Left will define right as hate, right will define left as hate. The opposite is always defined by hate, or labelled as other. Only within-group talk and ideology is allowed, and even then, that fractures.

Anyway, behind every hate speech law is a guy with a gun. And from what I understand of your logic, since we elect them, they can wield the gun against others. But... what if they were the opposite side, that believes your words to be hate? Are they then still justified to enact laws?

@dcolak Again, rude, uncivilized and highly offensive. I have reported you, because from now on is dpreview's choice if they agree with insults that go this low as part of their content. Used to be a civilized place here.But I forgive you, genuinely, hope you'll make the right choices, best regards. Bye.

in what way was dcolak rude, uncivilised, and highly offensive? Is it his use of 'pity' in regards to your friends and family within the context of ideologically you forcing others to protect your person because you will not? Or, because you advocate violence be done to those that you disagree with (violence is behind every law).

And now, because you won't handle a person one to one, you are getting the law of the website involved? I read all the same comments and if anyone came across as a bully, it was you, who, at the drop of a hat, gets the law involved to shut down debate.

Here's the takeaway for the few sane people in the readership: if you're going to be using guns at your next photo shoot, call the local police and ask what the requirements are. Then the day before or the day of, call the watch commander and tell her where and when you'll be photographing. Communication is magic.

It's from Japanese wasei-go (loan-word) English, a shortened form of the longer phrase costume-play into 'ko-su-pu-re-i' (as pronounced in Japanese katakana syllabary), and written back into English characters as 'cosplay'.

Nothing wrong with the word 'unboxing'. Perfectly cromulent word with lots of legitimate use cases. However, unboxing videos as entertainment is on par with televised bowling. Given the choice, I'd probably opt for the bowling tournament.

Heh, when I was about that age I tried flying home with an old school replica rifle I'd bought at Disney (I think it was the Indiana Jones show), single round musket kinda thing, still became an issue at the airport... I'm 37 so this was some 20+ years ago. I don't think the orange indicator caps were a thing by then, I still don't see how that makes a difference in most cases where people assume something at a glance but anyway...

Pellet guns are another issue for those who don't understand firearms. A pellet gun that shoots under a specific FPS isn't classed as a firearm and also you don't need any orange caps on the end of them. So technically, a kid could walk around the street with one, if his or her parents were "not attentive."

Times really have changed. I remember how we were allowed to bring our rifles to school every Thursday for our Rifle Club meetings in high school. No one got shot. No one even felt threatened. No one even thought about bringing a gun to school to hurt anyone.

Of course... that was around 54 years ago.... Times really have changed since then. And not for the better.

Wow, do you mean in the US it's legal to walk around with a BB gun as well as a handgun.Meanwhile here on the other side of the pond, a man dressed in battle fatigues hiding in a bush on a roundabout and firing what turned out to be an air rifle at cars and passers by and then the police, was tasered after the armed response unit was stood down!

The guy shooting from the round-about; bravo to the police for risking getting shot maybe in the eye just to save some lunatic who shouldn't have been allowed on the streets in the first place. Back before the 1950's in the U.S., such people would have been in insane asylums. Now they push you in front of subways.

Considering the amount of mass shooting carried out across the USA. The fact that some folk get concerned when someone is seen in a public place with what from a distance appears to be a rifle is not exactly a surprise

@BrentSchumer Please re-read and study American history. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We already had that right, the 2nd amendment is supposed to be in place to protect that right, not GRANT it.

I imagine the Founding Fathers were envisioning single shot muskets when they thought of the “right to bear arms”. If someone had foreseen AR15’s or suchlike, I imagine the Second Amendment might read a little differently.

@BrentSchumer: "optional shooting deaths"? Word you want is criminal. That said, many States allow open carry along with concealed carry and I support both. I suggest you overcome your fear of a rifle, shotgun, pistol, whatever and take a class at a local range.

Enough with all your libtard BS. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

SteveAnderson. No you don't have as many weapons in US, not even close. And in Canada it's not a right, but a privilege. Government can always confiscate your guns without question. US is 120 per 100, Canada is 35 per 100. Also, guns don't kill, people are.California violates 2nd amendment every day. Those unconstitutional laws must be cancelled, and politicians who adopted them must be in jail.Please read declaration of Independence:Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Landmark Supreme Court cases are reversed often in history. Who would have thought that Dress Scott would be followed by Brown, for example?

Having a court cases go your way doesn't mean that you're right; it just means that at a point in time you had a majority of justices. 5-4 rulings especially suggest luck with timing not obvious and settled law. If a different president got elected in 2000 and Heller went 6-3 against guns would you say "oh well that's what the landmark case decided?"

People in the right talk about ideas; people in the wrong talk about the law.

50 years of people being told their lot in life is someone else's fault and not theirs is going to lead to a small number of people taking it to heart. It's only getting worse, as Time Magazine said a decade or so ago, it's the "blame" culture. "Hmmm, I'm not rich, I don't have women dripping off me, my neighbourhood has changed, I think I'll go shoot a group of people because none of it is my fault!"

I'm sorry, there's a model dressed as a fairy or something, with a crown on her head, carrying a huge rifle that she wouldn't even be able to lift if it was real.There's dudes with cameras and other equipment following her, yet somehow the police is concerned?This is just embarrassing and couldn't really be happening anywhere else.

To be fair, those things are obvious to you or me, some of them aren't as obvious (size/weight, what she's dressed as, etc) to some people... If we didn't have real issues with the real things no one would bat an eye at this, kind of a catch 22.

During an active shooter training several years ago I saw video of a child actor who walked into the scene wearing typical, if just a bit baggy, clothes for a younger teenager. He stood behind a table and proceeded to pull an astonishing variety of firearms out of his pockets, finishing with a rifle he had hidden in his pants leg. He probably pulled 15 firearms out of his various pockets.

Yes, we elders think the current situation seems silly, but it’s real. The PROBABILITY that a tattered-looking person walking down the street in front of the school is a kidnapper scoping prey is infinitesimal, but the well-dressed businessman walking towards him may also be. Probably not. That young man (and they are almost exclusively males) walking into the mall probably isn’t going to shoot up the stores, but that happened a few years ago less than 50 miles from where I live.

Stopping someone with what seems a real rifle, & asking a few questions, is entirely reasonable in today’s world.

There's a reason that toy guns and replica guns are required to have bright and/or obvious markings. And from the video, it sure looks like whoever equipped the prop(s) for this photo shoot either removed those markings or painted over them.

And if this was a commercial photo shoot, being that it was at a state beach, they potentially would have needed a filming permit from CA State Parks / CA Film Commission, too.

Just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you *should* do it. Especially at a public beach surrounded by families and children.

Are you talking about Vancouver, or Seattle? It happened about 15 years ago, in Seattle.

It is ludicrous that police shoot at someone running AWAY. I completely agree with that. I think that most of the police-involved shootings I’ve read about the past several years were actually due to panic on the part of the policeman (again, almost entirely males - and I’m a man too) rather than any actual danger the policeman was in.

There is a motto very common in police departments here in the US: “To protect and to serve.” Today the “protect” part seems to mean “... white people” and the “serve” part has been thrown out.

That said, on July 3 I was at the beach with my grandson kayaking and there were many others lighting off fireworks. A county deputy showed up and very nicely and politely (no sarcasm here ... he was ...) reminded a few that they needed to move off the state land, where fireworks are prohibited, 20’ north to the county park where they are permitted. He said he didn’t want anyone to get in trouble. Those he reminded were also polite, and moved.

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. Hard to focus on any sort of meaningful improvement when everyone is lumped into the same negative category. Especially considering your own recent interaction was with a deputy who was nice and polite.

Again, there's always going to be people that shouldn't be in certain professions. Take doctors for example -- statistically speaking, medical negligence (which is waaay under-reported) kills hundreds of thousands in the U.S. each year. But that topic rarely makes the nightly news...

BUT - I still would not do a photoshoot publicly using sensitive objects without first alerting authority or even obtain a filming permit. I am all for supporting our constitution (including the 2nd amendment), what I am against is idiocy and lack of common sense. Most local PD would be happy to send a special-duty officer to escort the photoshoot, putting others at ease. Yes you have to pay for that service, but considering the risk of doing so without, it's well worth it.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.